Here's a timeline of Activision Blizzard's terrible week, as it faces fan protests after an esports athlete was punished for voicing support for Hong Kong

Kevin Webb



"Hearthstone" player Blitzchung launched an international controversy after 
he called for the liberation of "Hong Kong" in a post-match interview. Invent Global

A vocal group of fans are boycotting Activision Blizzard after the company punished an esports competitor who spoke out in support of the protests in "Hong Kong.'
Chung Ng Wai, the esports competitor better known as Blitzchung, shouted "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age" in Chinese amid a post-match interview at a Blizzard-sponsored "Hearthstone" tournament in Taiwan on October 5.
Blizzard responded by stripping Blitzchung of his prize money and barring him from "Hearthstone" competitions for one year. Blizzard said Blitzchung's comments had violated the competition rules by damaging the company's image. It later walked back the punishment, reducing it down to 6 months.
Critics have accused the California-based studio of prioritizing its relationship with China instead of protecting free speech — something it denied in a statement issued on Friday night.
The controversy has the potential to spill over into BlizzCon, Blizzard annual fan convention scheduled for November 1st. A group called Fight for the Future plans to organize a protest at the event, to be held in Anaheim, California.

Activision Blizzard is dealing with a fan revolt and intense public scrutiny after punishing Blitzchung — a Hong Kong-based esports competitor who voiced support for Hong Kong's protesters during a Blizzard-run event on October 5.

Blitzchung, whose real name is Chung Ng Wai, is a grandmaster-level player in "Hearthstone," Blizzard's very popular digital card game.

During Blizzard's official broadcast of the Asia-Pacific Grandmasters competition, Blitzchung appeared in a post-match interview wearing a gas mask. As the broadcast ended, Blitzchung shouted "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age," with the apparent support of the two tournament broadcasters.

Blizzard responded to Blitzchung's comments on October 8 by stripping him of about $3,000 in prize money he had already earned for the tournament, and barred him from "Hearthstone" competitions for one year. Blizzard also said it would no longer work with the two broadcasters who were interviewing Blitzchung during his comments. The company deleted the match and interview footage from its official channels as well.

In the blog post announcing Blitzchung's ban, Blizzard said "we stand by one's right to express individual thoughts and opinions," but Blitzchung's comments were deemed to be harmful to the company.

In a follow-up statement issued on Friday night, Blizzard said that it was reducing his suspension (and that of the broadcasters) to six months, and restoring his prize money — though mostly otherwise stood by its earlier positions.

Here's a timeline of Blizzard's terrible week, as fans and politicians expressed their outrage over how the company handled the episode:

Critics accused Blizzard of prioritizing its business interests in China instead of protecting free speech.


"World of Warcraft" is one of Blizzard's most popular games
 "World of Warcraft Classic"/Blizzard Entertainment

Blizzard's decision has sparked outrage from Americans, who say Blitzchung's comments should be protected as free speech — especially given that Blizzard is an American company. Supporters of the protests in Hong Kong accused Blizzard of compromising its principles to protect its business interests in China.

Hong Kong has been under a condition of civil unrest for more than four months. Millions of people have marched to demand sovereignty from mainland China and protest its socioeconomic conditions. The ongoing protests have already garnered international attention, with the territory's increasingly complex relationship with China's communist government as a core issue.

China spends more money on video games than any other country in the world, making the market a vital part of Blizzard's business. Tencent, one of China's biggest companies and the largest video-game publisher in the world, owns a 5% stake in Blizzard's parent company, Activision Blizzard.

Blizzard is the latest American company to face criticism for its relationship to China. The NBA is also embroiled in its own controversy involving Hong Kong and China after Houston Rockets General Manager Darryl Morey shared a tweet in support of the protests. Morey later apologized and deleted the tweet, but the situation has strained the league's relationship with China.

Blizzard's decision drew criticism from US Senators and fellow video game makers.


Blizzard Entertainment

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon were among the many voices that came to Blitzchung's defense, accusing Blizzard of censorship.

"Blizzard shows it is willing to humiliate itself to please the Chinese Communist Party," Wyden tweeted. "No American company should censor calls for freedom to make a quick buck."

Epic Games, the company behind "Fortnite," issued a statement saying that no "Fortnite" players would be punished for sharing their opinion on politics and human rights. Though 40% of Epic is owned by Tencent, China's largest video game publisher, CEO (and majority shareholder) Tim Sweeney said he would "never" allow this sort of punishment for a player.


Outraged fans have vowed to boycott Blizzard games until the company changes its stance on the Hong Kong protests.


Fans filled the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York for the finale of
 Blizzard's "Overwatch League." Overwatch League

Upset fans have flooded message boards for Blizzard's most popular games with posts calling for boycotts of Blizzard. The main Reddit board dedicated to Blizzard titles, "r/Blizzard," was temporarily set to private mode on October 8 by the moderators because of the intense backlash. A few posters who shared messages about Hong Kong on Blizzard's own forums had their accounts banned from the site until the year 3019.

"#BlizzardBoycott" became a trending hashtag on Twitter as dozens of people shared screenshots of themselves deleting their Blizzard accounts or canceling subscriptions to Blizzard's "World of Warcraft."

As the public backlash continued, Blizzard employees and esports contractors alike expressed frustration and concern with the company's stance.


An orc statute from the center of Blizzard Entertainment's campus. Activision / Blizzard Entertainment

Hours after Blizzard announced Blitzchung's ban, a former Blizzard employee tweeted that some backlash seemed to be brewing internally: Someone had covered up two of the company's key values — "Think Globally" and "Every Voice Matters" — enshrined on a statue at the company's headquarters.

On October 9, a group of some 30 Activision Blizzard employees staged a walkout to protest the company's punishment of a Hong Kong-based esports competitor who made a political statement during a Blizzard event in Taiwan, according to a report from Blake Montgomery of The Daily Beast.

A photo shared with The Daily Beast and posted on Imgur showed several employees holding umbrellas — an object that has become symbolic of the protests in Hong Kong.

On October 10, Justin "Jayne" Conroy, an coach for a Dallas-based esports team in Activision Blizzard's Overwatch League, was reportedly ordered to delete a tweet that criticized Blizzard's punishment of Blitzchung.

A few hours before Jayne's tweet, "Hearthstone" commentator Brian Kibler announced that he would decline working with the company for the finals of its Grandmasters competition. Though Kibler agreed that Blitzchung had violated the company's policies, he said the punishment seemed too harsh for the situation. Two days later, another "Hearthstone" commentator, Nathan "Admirable" Zamora said he was withdrawing from the event as well.


Some people have started using one of Blizzard's characters as a mascot for the protest, in hopes of straining Blizzard's relationship with China.


Mei from "Overwatch," in her Lunar New Year attire. Blizzard Entertainment

A group of gamers latched onto the idea of co-opting Mei, a Chinese character from Blizzard's "Overwatch," for pro-protest messages. The idea was an attempt to sour China's relationship with Blizzard. China's government has strict regulations on what games are released in the country, and games that promote deeply political messages or rebellion against the government are specifically prohibited.

While Mei isn't normally much of a rebel in her game, fans have taken liberties with her design to make her an emblem of the protests in Hong Kong. This includes draping her in the design of Hong Kong's flag and drawing pictures of her wearing symbols of the protests, like umbrellas and gas masks.

Blizzard's annual fan convention is less than a month away, and a mass protest of the event could be on the horizon.


Blizzard

BlizzCon, Blizzard's fan annual convention, is scheduled for the weekend of November 1. The company typically holds its biggest announcements of the year for the BlizzCon stage, but this year's event could have a much different tone.

An organization called Fight for the Future is organizing a protest to coincide with BlizzCon in Anaheim, California, according to Vice, and protest signs have recently been spotted at official Blizzard esports events.

With less than a month until the company's largest event, the world will be watching to see what Blizzard does next.

On Friday night, Blizzard President J. Allen Brack issued a statement saying that its ‘relationships in China had no influence on our decision’ to punish Blitzchung.

Blizzard Entertainment

In the statement, Brack says that Blitzchung violated Blizzard's rules around keeping its official channels focused on the game, but that it was walking back his suspension to only six months — and the same again for the on-air casters involved. Brack also indicated that "we now believe he should receive his prizing," though he didn't offer specifics.

You can read the full statement here.

INSIDE BLIZZARD
REGARDING LAST WEEKEND’S HEARTHSTONE GRANDMASTERS TOURNAMENT
Blizzard Entertainment

October 12, 2019

Hello Blizzard Community . . .

I want to take a few minutes to talk to all of you about the Hearthstone Grandmasters tournament this past weekend. On Monday, we made the decision to take action against a player named blitzchung and two shoutcasters after the player shared his views on what’s happening in Hong Kong on our official broadcast channel.

At Blizzard, our vision is “to bring the world together through epic entertainment.” And we have core values that apply here: Think Globally; Lead Responsibly; and importantly, Every Voice Matters, encouraging everybody to share their point of view. The actions that we took over the weekend are causing people to question if we are still committed to these values. We absolutely are and I will explain.

Our esports programs are an expression of our vision and our values. Esports exist to create opportunities for players from around the world, from different cultures, and from different backgrounds, to come together to compete and share their passion for gaming. It is extremely important to us to protect these channels and the purpose they serve: to bring the world together through epic entertainment, celebrate our players, and build diverse and inclusive communities.

As to how those values apply in this case:

First, our official esports tournament broadcast was used as a platform for a winner of this event to share his views with the world.

We interview competitors who are at the top of their craft to share how they feel. We want to experience that moment with them. Hearing their excitement is a powerful way to bring us together.

Over the weekend, blitzchung used his segment to make a statement about the situation in Hong Kong—in violation of rules he acknowledged and understood, and this is why we took action.

Every Voice Matters, and we strongly encourage everyone in our community to share their viewpoints in the many places available to express themselves. However, the official broadcast needs to be about the tournament and to be a place where all are welcome. In support of that, we want to keep the official channels focused on the game.

Second, what is the role of shoutcasters for these broadcasts?

We hire shoutcasters to amplify the excitement of the game. They elevate the watchability and help the esports viewing experience stay focused on the tournament and our amazing players.

Third, were our actions based on the content of the message?

Part of Thinking Globally, Leading Responsibly, and Every Voice Matters is recognizing that we have players and fans in almost every country in the world. Our goal is to help players connect in areas of commonality, like their passion for our games, and create a sense of shared community.

The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.

We have these rules to keep the focus on the game and on the tournament to the benefit of a global audience, and that was the only consideration in the actions we took.

If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.

OK, what could Blizzard have done better, and where do we go from here?

Over the past few days, many players, casters, esports fans, and employees have expressed concerns about how we determined the penalties. We’ve had a chance to pause, to listen to our community, and to reflect on what we could have done better. In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly.

We want to ensure that we maintain a safe and inclusive environment for all our players, and that our rules and processes are clear. All of this is in service of another important Blizzard value—Play Nice; Play Fair.

In the tournament itself blitzchung *played* fair. We now believe he should receive his prizing. We understand that for some this is not about the prize, and perhaps for others it is disrespectful to even discuss it. That is not our intention.

But playing fair also includes appropriate pre-and post-match conduct, especially when a player accepts recognition for winning in a broadcast. When we think about the suspension, six months for blitzchung is more appropriate, after which time he can compete in the Hearthstone pro circuit again if he so chooses. There is a consequence for taking the conversation away from the purpose of the event and disrupting or derailing the broadcast.

With regard to the casters, remember their purpose is to keep the event focused on the tournament. That didn’t happen here, and we are setting their suspension to six months as well.

Moving forward, we will continue to apply tournament rules to ensure our official broadcasts remain focused on the game and are not a platform for divisive social or political views.

One of our goals at Blizzard is to make sure that every player, everywhere in the world, regardless of political views, religious beliefs, race, gender, or any other consideration always feels safe and welcome both competing in and playing our games.

At Blizzard, we are always listening and finding ways to improve—it is part of our culture. Thank you for your patience with us as we continue to learn.

Sincerely,

J. Allen Brack
President of Blizzard Entertainment

SEE ALSO: Blizzard is under scrutiny from lawmakers, gamers, and maybe even its own employees after punishing a 'Hearthstone' competitor who voiced his support for protesters in Hong Kong 

SEE ALSO:-based game company Blizzard bans pro esports player and confiscates his prize money after he voices support for Hong Kong protest 

THE SAME IS TRUE IN CANADA 

Only half of Gen Xers have a retirement account, and that's a catastrophe in the making

Tanza Loudenback

Gen X is in worse financial shape than millennials when it comes to retirement. Oleg Golovnev/EyeEm

Insider teamed up with Morning Consult to survey more than 2,000 Americans and found that Generation X is in especially dismal financial shape.

Exactly half of Gen Xers said they don't have a retirement savings account, while 13% said they do have one but aren't actively contributing to it.

Millennials may bear the brunt of bad press, but Gen X is arguably in worse financial shape.

Insider recently teamed up with Morning Consult to survey 2,096 Americans about their financial health, debt, and earnings for its new series, "The State of Our Money." Of the total respondents, 566 were Gen X, defined as ages 39 to 54 this year.

According to the survey, exactly half of Gen Xers don't have a retirement savings account. That's only slightly less than the share of millennial respondents who don't have one (54%). That's particularly concerning considering the nearly two-decade span between the youngest millennials and oldest Gen Xers.

While the Silent Generation and early Baby Boomers have relied on a combination of pension benefits and Social Security to make up their retirement income, Gen X has largely had to assume the responsibility of building up their own nest egg, and they're clearly struggling.

All told, only 36% of Gen Xers are actively saving in a retirement account, while 13% have a dormant retirement account. Americans tend to earn the most money from their late 30s to early 60s, making it a crucial period for socking away extra income.

And yet, "I don't earn enough money to save for retirement" was cited as a major reason for not saving by about 62% of those who don't have a retirement plan. Regardless of salary, the financial squeeze for many Americans tends to ramp up during mid-life. They're typically the most expensive years, when buying a house, supporting children, and accumulating debt become the norm.

About 43% of Gen Xers also said unemployment is a major reason they don't have a retirement account. This could be explained, at least in part, by mothers leaving work to care for young children during their 20s and 30s.

Still, according to Pew Research Center, women exiting the workforce to care for children is becoming less common. In fact, 70% of moms with kids under 18 worked in 2015. Many families are no longer relying on a single income to cover expenses and save for financial goals like retirement.

A separate survey from Schwab Retirement Plan Services found that even those who are contributing to a 401(k) aren't saving enough. The typical Gen Xer thinks they'll need $1.8 million for a comfortable retirement, but they saved an average of just $9,500 last year — half of the maximum allowable contribution.

Lambda School is Silicon Valley's big bet on reinventing education and making student debt obsolete. But students say it's a 'cult' and they would have been better off learning on their own.

Rosalie Chan

Austen Allred, CEO and co-founder of Lambda School Lambda School


Some of Silicon Valley's best and brightest believe that Lambda School is a new model for vocational education that could make student debt obsolete.
The big innovation: Rather than paying up-front for tuition to its 9-month coding bootcamp program, Lambda School asks most students to sign income sharing agreements — where they pay a portion of their salary for the first two years after getting a job that pays $50,000 or more.
However, we spoke to former and current Lambda School student, who say that it falls short of that promise, with under-qualified instructors and an incomplete curriculum that requires them to rely on self-teaching and outside resources to complete the program.
Those students say that the program is like a "cult," where they worry about criticizing Lambda School for fear of getting kicked out, and where they're encouraged by staff — including CEO Austen Allred — to respond to critical social media posts with positive testimonials.
The Lambda School students say that when they voice concerns about the program or complain of harassment from fellow students, they get brushed off, ignored, or made to feel they were the problem.
Lambda School is a graduate of the famed Y Combinator startup accelerator program, and has attracted $48 million in venture capital from investors including GV (formerly Google Ventures), Stripe, and even Ashton Kutcher.
"While we can't respond to specific inquiries out of respect for privacy, we appreciate the concerns of any and all of our students. We are continuously aiming to be transparent on where we need improvement and the steps we are taking to address them," CEO Austen Allred said in a statement.


Erica Thompson has always had an interest in technology. Her father, a municipal transit operator, taught her the basics of programming, which she practiced while he built computers in his free time.


She initially studied music education, but after her father had a heart attack, she decided that it might be time to pursue a career in programming. She had just wrapped up a software development course at a local college in Los Angeles when she saw a Facebook ad for Lambda School — an online coding bootcamp that requires no upfront tuition.

She decided to take a chance to hone her skills and make herself more competitive in the job market, without paying out of pocket.

It's that very sales pitch that's driven Lambda School, based in San Francisco, to a position of prominence in Silicon Valley. A graduate of the famed Y Combinator startup incubator program (previous graduates include Airbnb and Dropbox), it's gone on to raise over $48 million from investors like GV (formerly Google Ventures), Stripe, and even Ashton Kutcher. The school boasts that there are nearly 3,000 students currently enrolled.

What makes it unique from other coding schools is its income sharing agreement (ISA) model. Students sign a contract, agreeing to pay 17% of their income for two years when they get a job paying at least $50,000 a year, with a maximum payout of $30,000. It also offers a less-popular choice to pay a flat $20,000 in tuition, instead.


To many, Lambda School represents a better way of thinking about higher education and vocational training, as Wired put it in an August headline: "Lambda School's For-Profit Plan to Solve Student Debt." And because students attend Lambda School remotely for eight hours a day, it's theoretically open to anybody, anywhere. The model has proven so appealing, other startups are following suit with their own ISA-based business models.

Lambda School boasts of its successes, saying that graduates of the 9-month program go on to work for companies like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft. According to the Council on Integrity in Results Reporting, 60.9% of Lambda School students were employed 90 days after graduation, going up to 85.9% within 180 days. Graduates earn a median annual base salary of $60,000, according to that same study — although a Lambda School spokesperson puts that figure at $70,000, and notes that many graduates are in rural areas where average pay is lower.

What Thompson found, however, was that Lambda School was very different than what she hoped it would be. She says that she was brushed off by staff when she reported racist harassment from two of her classmates.

Not long after, Thompson says she was told that she was in danger of being removed from the program if she didn't hit certain goals. She says that she ultimately was kicked out of Lambda School, towards the end of the program, just days after raising her concerns directly with CEO and cofounder Austen Allred.


"It seems that if anyone speaks up and is too critical of the program in any of the channels, they react as if the student is the problem, though they mandate feedback daily," Thompson told Business Insider.

This is indicative of the general atmosphere at Lambda School, according to 5 former and current students, most of whom asked for anonymity for the sake of their careers. We also spoke to applicants and other people familiar with the Lambda School program.

They say that while Lambda School pitches itself as a first step towards better job opportunities, the reality can be more underwhelming: The curriculum is lacking, the instructors are often under-qualified, and students are afraid to speak out in a culture described as being akin to a "cult," they say.

"Lambda School is not worth the life it takes from you, and it's not worth the dollar amount you agree to pay them back," a former student said.


Lambda School did not make Allred available for an interview. In a statement, Allred said:

"While we can't respond to specific inquiries out of respect for privacy, we appreciate the concerns of any and all of our students. We are continuously aiming to be transparent on where we need improvement and the steps we are taking to address them."

"We adopted the ISA model to open up access to students from all walks of life and are constantly iterating on our curriculum and processes based on their unique experiences and feedback. At the same time, we're working to streamline those same feedback loops to make them as effective as possible. There's always room to improve, and we welcome any additional feedback on how we can continue to raise the bar."
'Trust the process'

Allred is known to many in Silicon Valley as a charismatic leader with a compelling personal background. He moved to San Francisco from Utah to break into the tech industry, and says he first lived in a car while his career got off the ground.


He's said that he decided to start Lambda School under the ISA model after being "taken aback" when speaking with someone who couldn't afford the $10,000 to attend a coding bootcamp. The goal, Allred has said, is to increase the economic opportunity for anybody, anywhere, who wants to build their own lucrative career in tech.

However, Lambda School students say that in reality, the program feels like a "cult" that attracts people down on their luck or otherwise in tough financial situations, and then locks them into an intensive program that ultimately leaves them on the hook to pay back thousands of dollars in their future wages.

"Lambda School is literally a cult," a former student said. "Cults are hard to leave. Cults play on your emotional vulnerability. Cults keep you mentally and physically exhausted so you can be more compliant…They're specifically targeting people who are vulnerable in hard-life situations."

To that point, 5 current and former Lambda School students tell Business Insider that they feel that they can't criticize or critique the program.


A recent blog post from Allred highlights Lambda School's process for gathering feedback, where students are given constant opportunity to submit their thoughts, both directly to instructors and anonymously.

However, the students say they don't feel comfortable airing any grievances: They're not only concerned about getting kicked out of the program, but also that they may end up blacklisted by companies like Nexient that are known to hire Lambda School graduates.

Often, when students do bring up concerns about the school, they're just told to "trust the process," two sources say.

"It almost feels like gaslighting," a student said. "A lot of students have brought up similar concerns, and they're continually disregarded. There's a mantra they keep repeating: 'Trust the process of Lambda.'"

Troll defense

Allred, for his part, is known for personally responding to critics of Lambda School on social media. "People want to think that Lambda is a scam, because they want to believe the results we're producing are impossible," Allred recently told Wired.

It's common for students to spring to the school's defense, too.

For example, when somebody posted to Twitter saying "Lambda School is trash," or when a Reddit user last year wrote a post saying "Is Lambda School really terrible?" users claiming to be Lambda School students chimed in with their thoughts. While those posts can sometimes contain critiques of the program, they're usually positive on Lambda School overall.

"Your experience will vary based on who is your instructor and your PM, as with everything, some are better than others, but honestly, overall, I have had a really good experience, and I'm very happy with it," one commenter said.


However, these posts are at least sometimes made because Lambda School encourages students to defending the company's reputation in public, students say – with management, staff, and even classmates all known to encourage students to respond to any haters.

A screenshot of Lambda School's main chatroom on Slack, shared with Business Insider, shows Allred himself thanking students for responding to a critical Twitter post. "Thanks guys for tweeting there, appreciate that," Allred wrote, as he shared a link to yet another Twitter post.
'The curriculum is garbage'

The Lambda School students that Business Insider spoke with said that the actual curriculum has its problems, too. Expectations are unclear, they say, with constantly-shifting deadlines and classwork assignments that are themselves packed with software bugs.

Some students say that to actually master the programming topics at hand, they had to use outside resources like Treehouse, Khan Academy or YouTube, because the Lambda School program itself wasn't sufficient. One former student goes so far as to say that it doesn't do enough to teach the fundamentals of computer science.


"Everyone knows the curriculum is garbage," another former student said. "They know it's not working. If you're keeping up, you either already had a foundation or you're self-teaching. The actual school is not effective at teaching. People are going outside to get what they need."

In general, many graduates who found jobs feel they would have been successful without Lambda School, though the school gets the credit for their success, two former students say.

Ultimately, some students say, they feel like they would have gotten the same or better education in coding with self-guided learning programs from places like Udemy or Khan Academy.

"Lambda can do exactly the same as $10 course from Udemy," a former student said. "If you are able to get any resource on the Internet and spend the next few weeks actually reading through it and coding small projects, you're going to get a better experience than Lambda."


Students also give poor marks to the quality of teaching staff at Lambda School. Three current and former students complain that instructors are often themselves graduates of other coding bootcamps, with little real-world experience. One former student describes the instructors as "highly incompetent."

Among the teaching staff is Ryan Allred, brother to CEO Austen Allred, who works at Lambda School as a data science instructor. However, his LinkedIn profile indicates that his experience in the tech industry consists of graduating from a web development bootcamp and working as an intern in the AI-related field of deep learning.

A Lambda School spokesperson defends his experience, and says he's "one of our higher rated instructors at the school." When Business Insider checked his LinkedIn profile after reaching out to Lambda School for comment, Ryan Allred's previous experience had changed from "Deep Learning Intern" to "Deep Learning Engineer."

Current and former students also say that Lambda School wouldn't be able to run without the labor of its team leads: students who are employed by the school to lead team meetings, fill out forms rating student performance, and conduct one-on-one meetings to review code.

'Disorganized'

Former and current Lambda School students describe the program as "disorganized," with topics, projects, and even the length of the program itself seemingly changing at random.

Starting in May, Lambda School extended the length of the program from 30 weeks to 9 months. A spokesperson says that existing students were given the option to either finish the program as scheduled, switch to the 9-month timeline, or else leave the program without triggering their ISA. No students stayed on the 30-week plan, the spokesperson said.

However, three sources say that students weren't warned of the change at all and suddenly had their expected date of graduation extended by about a month with no warning. That presented a potential financial risk, the sources say, given that many simply don't have the time to work paying jobs while enrolled in the intensive program.

This kind of disorganization appears to have led to at least one costly mistake for Lambda School: In August, Business Insider reported that Lambda School was facing a $75,000 fine for failing to obtain a key registration with educational authorities in the state of California, where it's headquartered.


At the time, Allred blamed Lambda School's former legal counsel for the decision not to apply for the registration in the first place. Failing to obtain that registration could endanger its ability to continue to operate, regulators told Business Insider. Currently, Lambda School's registration application is under review, authorities say.

Read more: The hot Silicon Valley coding bootcamp Lambda School is paying a $75,000 fine for not registering properly with the state of California

Two people also say that the application process for Lambda School is confusing and inconsistent. Susan Money, from Michigan, said that she was unimpressed with the quality of a prerequisite screening class required to enter the program, and she never heard back from Lambda School after she completed it.

Another, Jacqueline Homan of Pennsylvania, who applied for the program hoping it would lift her out of poverty, said that she withdrew from that same class for medical reasons, and was told that she could re-enter at any time — but was bumped from Lambda School's Slack without notice in the interim period and couldn't raise Lambda School for help, even though she contacted the school to add her back.


Later, when Homan posted about her Lambda School experience on Quora, Allred responded, saying Homan's statements were false and that she was not accepted. Homan says she never received any rejection email.

"I basically got blown off," Homan told Business Insider. "If a program like that, that practically guaranteed job placement, if something like that isn't for someone like me, who the hell is it for?"
Diversity matters

Lambda School prides itself on a diverse student body. Because classes are held remotely, and because there's no upfront cost, it can accommodate students who might otherwise not have access to an education in programming. However, current and former students say that they've been disappointed that Lambda School's teaching staff isn't diverse, in turn: most of the school's instructors are male or are not from underrepresented groups.

"Diversity is an important area of focus for the team," a Lambda School spokesperson said. "There's been little turnover on the instruction team, and the initial team was hired primarily on referrals from the founders' home state of Utah, not a very diverse state. As we've grown we've adopted a rigorous hiring process that has resulted in 5 of the last 7 instructor hires coming from underrepresented groups."


Still, students say, Lambda School can sometimes make for a learning environment that's uncomfortable for students from underrepresented groups, with staff doing little to intervene. Students recall instances of racist memes spreading through the Slack chatrooms, or when a white male student wore a Mexican sombrero to a presentation in front of the class.

On one occasion, a former student says, instructors started referring to each other as "Nazis." Lambda School says it was unaware of this incident and could not find a record of it on its internal Slack.

"We take all forms of racism, sexism, and other discrimination very seriously," the spokesperson said. "Many students have been removed for violating our student code of conduct, which is primarily focused on ensuring a positive, safe learning environment for all students. We actively respond to inappropriate, unprofessional, and discriminatory content."

When students do report harassment, however, they're brushed off, ignored, or made to feel that they were the problem, students say. That was the case with Thompson, the student who says she was dismissed from the program after complaining of racist harassment.


"They advertise the school as being for non-traditional students who may not be able to afford other routes into the industry, but those same students are also less likely to be able to get justice if something goes wrong," Thompson said.
'You have to buy into it'

So, ultimately, is Lambda School worth it? That appears to be a matter of perspective.

The $60,000 median base salary of Lambda School graduates, as reported by the Council on Integrity in Results Reporting, is slightly below the $65,000 median across all coding bootcamps according to Course Report, which studied programs such as Hackbright Academy, Hack Reactor, and Fullstack Academy. However, going with Lambda School's own figures of $70,000 makes for a more favorable comparison.

A Lambda School blog post says that it plans to share more data on graduate salaries and employment each quarter, starting early next year.


Furthermore, the income sharing agreement model doesn't necessarily mean that Lambda School is cheaper than its competitors in absolute terms. Both the $20,000 flat-rate tuition plan and the $30,000 cap on ISA repayments over the two-year period are well over the average bootcamp tuition of $13,584, also according to Course Report.

To be sure, not all Lambda School students pay as much as $30,000. According to Lambda School's own math, if a student makes the minimum $50,000 annual salary that triggers the ISA, that student would be on the hook to pay $708.33 a month, totaling to nearly $17,000 at the end of the two-year repayment period.

A spokesperson points out that Lambda School's program is significantly longer than other programs of its like, and says that it includes more resources to help students get a job after graduation. The spokesperson said that the various coding education programs are very different, and it can "be like comparing apples and oranges." The spokesperson said that "we have always been open and upfront about the cost of our program but believe it is important to also be transparent about other school factors."

There still remains the question of cost, however, given that Lambda School's ISA means that students will be giving up a portion of their earnings after graduation for the two-year repayment period.


"That is an affordability concern for students who are getting a job and will still have to make ends meet, pay for shelter, pay for food, and take care of medication and other life expenses," Joanna Darcus, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, told Business Insider.

Still, despite these concerns, a former student says it's no surprise why so many of their fellow students and graduates jump to Lambda School's defense on social media and elsewhere. For them, Lambda School is a big, bold bet on their future success. That means that when things do go wrong, they may not want to admit it — even to themselves, the former student said.

"If you're in Lambda School as a student, you have to buy into it," a former student said. "You told your friends and family and girlfriend and kids that you're going to become a software engineer. You don't want to look like a loser if you didn't make it. I think people put all their accountability on themselves for making it work when the school is failing them."

Elizabeth Warren expressed her ire over Facebook running fake ads for Trump — by running a fake ad

Lauren Frias

Reuters


2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren ran a fake advertisement on Facebook claiming that CEO Mark Zuckerberg endorsed Trump's re-election, taking a jab at the social media platform for allowing the same for President Donald Trump.
Networks like CNN and NBCUniversal have refused to run ads for Trump with "demonstrably false" claims about former Vice President Joe Biden, but Facebook did.
The ads began circulating starting Thursday, CNN reported, and it has already been displayed on tens of thousands of newsfeeds nationwide.
Facebook spokesman Andy Stone issued a statement Friday in response to Warren's ad, saying that the social media platform seeks to protect free speech.

2020 candidate Elizabeth Warren has expressed her ire for big tech companies in the past, most recently amid reports that Facebook allows President Donald Trump to lie in ads. So how does she fight them?

By telling a lie, of course.

Her campaign posted a fake advertisement on the social media platform claiming that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg endorsed Trump's re-election. But she didn't run the ad without a disclaimer.

"You're probably shocked," the ad read. "And you might be thinking, 'how could this possibly be true?'"

"Well, it's not. (Sorry.)"

Warren's advertisement goes on to chastise Facebook for running false advertisements for Trump, while most television networks have denied to run the same advertisements. Networks like CNN and NBCUniversal have refused to run ads for Donald Trump with "demonstrably false" claims about former Vice President Joe Biden.
—Ryan McCarthy (@mccarthyryanj) October 3, 2019


Read more: Facebook confirms Donald Trump can lie in ads, but he can't curse

"If Trump tries to lie in a TV ad, most networks will refuse to air it," the ad stated. "But Facebook just cashes Trump's checks."

The ads began circulating starting Thursday, CNN reported, and it has already been displayed on tens of thousands of newsfeeds nationwide. Facebook spokesman Andy Stone issued a statement Friday in response to Warren's ad, saying that the social media platform seeks to protect free speech.

"If Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue, we believe Facebook should not be in the position of censoring that speech," Stone said.
—Julia Carrie Wong (@juliacarriew) October 11, 2019

During WWII, the US Army did a massive survey to get soldiers' uncensored opinions — here's what they said

Christopher Woody

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, left, gives the order of the day to paratroopers

 in England prior to the first assault of the Normandy invasion, June 6, 1944.

 Associated Press

By the end of 1940, most of the world was at war, and the US military was getting in shape for a potential fight. The US wouldn't enter the war, however, until the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec. 7, 1941.

Mobilizing millions of troops was no easy task, and to figure out what it was doing wrong and what needed to change, the Army asked the soldiers themselves.
A history professor who compiled tens of thousands of survey responses told Insider why the Army sought the unvarnished opinions of its soldiers and what those opinions revealed.

In September 1940, World War II was a year old. The US was still a noncombatant, but it was preparing for a fight.

That month, the US introduced the Selective Training and Service Act — the first peacetime draft in US history. Mobilizing the millions of troops was a monumental task and essential to deploying "the arsenal of democracy" that President Franklin D. Roosevelt called on Americans to provide.

Inducting millions of civilians and turning them into effective troops — and keeping them happy, healthy, supplied, and fighting — was also a daunting challenge.

In order to find the best way to do that, the War Department mounted an opinion survey, polling nearly a half-million soldiers stationed all around the world throughout the war. Their uncensored responses, given as the war was being fought, are an unprecedented window into how those troops felt about the war, the military, and their role in both.

"Entirely too much boot-licking going on," one soldier wrote. "Some sort of a merit system should be instituted."

"Spam, Spam, Spam. All I dream about is Spam," wrote another.

In an email interview, Edward Gitre, a history professor at Virginia Tech whose project, The American Soldier in World War II, has compiled tens of thousands of responses to those surveys, explained why the Army sought the unvarnished opinions of its soldiers and what those opinions revealed.

Christopher Woody: Why did the War Department conduct these surveys? What did it want to find out about US troops and how did it want to use that information?

A party of newly arrived US troops in Britain having a meal from food containers, at their quarters, June 28, 1942. AP Photo
Gitre: Henry Stimson, the aged Secretary of War, outright barred the polling of US troops when one of the nation's leading pollsters, Elmo Roper, first pitched the idea in spring 1941. The War Department was not in the habit of soliciting the "opinions" of foot soldiers.

Yet an old friend of the Roosevelt family, Frederick Osborn—who had already helped to institute the country's first peacetime draft in 1940—quietly but effectively made the case.

Chiefly, he convinced Stimson and other leery officers that surveys would be for their benefit. Surveys would provide them information for planning and policymaking purposes. Allowing and encouraging GIs to openly air their "gripes" was not part of Osborn's original pitch.

When George C. Marshall became chief of staff in 1939, he compared the US Army to that of a third-rate power.

With the passage of the draft in 1940, the War Department would face the monumental challenge of rapidly inducting hundreds of thousands, then after Pearl Harbor millions of civilians. Most lacked prior military experience. But this new crop was also better educated than previous generations of draftees, and they came with higher expectations of the organization.

The surveys, then, would help address a host of "personnel" issues, such as placement, training, furloughs, ratings, so on and so forth.

The civilian experts the Army brought in to run this novel research program were embedded in what was known as the Morale Branch. This outfit, as the name suggests, was tasked with shoring up morale. These social and behavioral scientists had to figure out, first, how to define morale, and, second, how to measure it.

Some old Army hands insisted that morale was purely a matter of command, that it was the byproduct of discipline and leadership. But reporting indicated pretty clearly that morale correlated to what soldiers were provided during off-duty hours as well, in terms of recreation and entertainment.

To address the latter, the War Department created an educational, recreational, welfare, and entertainment operation that spanned the globe. The numbers of candy bars and packages of cigarettes shipped and sold were accounted for not in the millions but billions.

If you were coordinating the monthly global placement of, say, two million books from best-sellers' lists, wouldn't you want to know something about soldier and sailor preferences? A whole class of survey questions were directed at marketing research.

Woody: What topics did the questions cover, and what kind of feedback and complaints did the troops give in response?

US Rangers toughen up with a little all-in wrestling and unarmed combat, during training at a British commando depot somewhere in England, August 20, 1942. AP PhotoWoody: The US military drew from a wide swath of the population during WWII. How do you think that affected troops' perception of the war, of military and civilian leadership, and of what the troops themselves wanted out of their service?
Gitre: The surveys administered by the Army's Research Branch cover myriads of topics, from the individual food items placed in various rations, to the specific material used in seasonal uniforms, to the educational courses offered through the Armed Forces Institute.

A soldier might be asked a hundred or more multiple-choice and short-answer questions in any one survey. They would be asked to record more their behaviors, insights, and experiences related to service directly. They were asked about their civilian lives as well, including their previous occupation, family background, regional identity, religion, and education. This information could be then correlated with other military and government records to provide a more holistic picture of the average American GI.

One of this research outfit's most reliable "clients" was the Army's Office of Surgeon General. The quality and effectiveness of medical and psychiatric care had wide implications, not least in terms of combat readiness. The Surgeon General's office was interested in more than the care it provided. Soldiers were asked about their most intimate of experiences—their sexual habits and hygiene among them.

Administered in August 1945, Survey #233 asked men stationed in Italy if they were having sex with Italian women, and, if so, how frequently; did they pay for sex, how did they pay, did they "shack" up, use a condom and if not why not, drink beforehand, and did they know how to identify the symptoms of an STI? The battle against venereal diseases knew no lines of propriety.

The Research Branch surveyed or interviewed a half-million service members during the war. The answers they received were as varied as one can imagine, though there were of course common "gripes," which the old Army hands could have easily ticked off without the aid of a cross-sectional scientific survey.

Yet the scope WWII military operations and the influx of so many educated civilians did create innumerable challenges that were often novel.

But from the soldier's perspective, it should not come as a shock that so many of them might have taken to heart the premise of the US's involvement in the war, that the US was committed to defending democracy, and alone if necessary.

Respondent after survey respondent demanded, then, that the US military live up to the principles of democracy for which they were being called to sacrifice. And so, they savaged expressions of the old Regular Army's hierarchical "caste" culture wherever they saw it, but especially when it frustrated their own hopes and ambitions.

They wanted, in the parlance of the day, "fair play" and a "square deal." They wanted to be respected as a human being, and not treated like a "dog."


US soldiers surround a letter-carrier at an American Expeditionary Force camp in Northern Ireland, March 31, 1945. AP Photo

Gitre: The WWII US Army is known as a "citizen soldier" army (as opposed to a professional or "standing" army). It was also at the time described as a "peacetime army." Compulsory service was passed by Congress in September 1940, roughly 15 months prior to Pearl Harbor. Military conscription was from its inception a civil process.

That year-plus gap had a deep and lasting impact on how the War Department approached the rapid expansion of US forces. Just the same, it also shaped the expectations of Americans who were called to serve—as well as of their family members and loved ones, and the wider public.

The success of the Selective Service System would depend on the state in which the Army returned soldiers back to civil life. They would need to feel that they had gained something from the military, in the form of skill training or more education.

"In a larger sense [compulsory military training] provides an opportunity to popularize the Army with our people which is essential for an efficient fighting force," the secretary of war said. "Maintenance of a high military morale is one of the most important contributing factors to good public morale," he continued.

This view filtered down into the ranks. Sailors and soldiers expected to receive useful training and additional education. They also believed the military would put the skills, experiences, and practical know-how they already possessed as civilians to good use.

Woody: Was there anything in the troops' responses that surprised you?Gitre: What has surprised me most, I think, are the many remarks not about command and leadership but race.We know that leaders of and activists in the black community pressed the War Department and Roosevelt administration to confront the nation's "original sin" and strike down legal segregation. How otherwise could the US claim to be a champion of democracy while systematically denying the rights of a population that was liable, as free white citizens were, to compulsory service?Black leaders embraced the V-shaped hand signal that was flashed so often to signify allied Victory, and they made it their own, calling for "Double V" or double victory: that is, victory abroad, and victory at home.Surveys from black soldiers demonstrate in rather stark terms how pervasively this message took hold among the rank and file. African Americans were especially well attuned to and critical of the military's caste culture and to its reinforcement of white supremacy.

It is especially jarring, then, to read commentaries from soldiers defending the continuation of white male supremacy. Not only did some of these respondents opine on the virtues of segregation and the inferiority of blacks. A whole host of them objected likewise to women in uniform.

But undoubtedly the most shocking responses are those that espouse naked anti-Semitism. These cut against the grain of our collective memory of the American GI as liberator of the German death and concentration camps. Statements of these sort are rare. Yet they exist.

Woody: What's your biggest takeaway from these surveys about troops' feelings about the war and their attitudes toward the military?

Gitre: When I first encountered these open-ended responses, I was almost immediately captivated by how similarly white and black soldiers wrote about equity in the military. These two populations sometimes used the same exact phrasing.  For so many black soldiers, military service presented itself as an opportunity to break the shackles of structural inequality. They pleaded for merit-based assignments, postings, and promotions. You can flip over to surveys written by white enlisted men and you can see them wrestling with the same involuntary constraints arising from their own submission. They vigorously protested being treated like a "dog," or a "slave."

The leveling effect of military service was profound—and not simply for the individual soldier, psychologically. The survey research Osborn's team conducted on race, merit, and morale demonstrated that not only were black soldiers just as effective in combat, but that the proximity of black and white troops in combat situations improved race relations, instead of destroying morale, as had long been feared. This research fed the 1947 Executive Order 9981 desegregating the US armed forces.

That brings us back to that 1940 peacetime decision to make military service compulsory as a civic duty. You can't overestimate its significance. This isn't a plea for compulsory military service. Yet as I continue to read these troop surveys, I am confronted daily by the prospect that we are losing the hard-won insights and lessons of a generation that is passing into its final twilight.We know that leaders of and activists in the black community pressed the War Department and Roosevelt administration to confront the nation's "original sin" and strike down legal segregation. How otherwise could the US claim to be a champion of democracy while systematically denying the rights of a population that was liable, as free white citizens were, to compulsory service

Black leaders embraced the V-shaped hand signal that was flashed so often to signify allied Victory, and they made it their own, calling for "Double V" or double victory: that is, victory abroad, and victory at homeSurveys from black soldiers demonstrate in rather stark terms how pervasively this message took hold among the rank and file. African Americans were especially well attuned to and critical of the military's caste culture and to its reinforcement of white supremacy.
t is especially jarring, then, to read commentaries from soldiers defending the continuation of white male supremacy. Not only did some of these respondents opine on the virtues of segregation and the inferiority of blacks. A whole host of them objected likewise to women in uniform.But undoubtedly the most shocking responses are those that espouse naked anti-Semitism. These cut against the grain of our collective memory of the American GI as liberator of the German death and concentration camps. Statements of these sort are rare. Yet they exist.Woody: What's your biggest takeaway from these surveys about troops' feelings about the war and their attitudes toward the military?A 7th Army Division soldier, hit in the foot and head, is treated by a medic and put on a litter to be carried to the rear, in Okinawa, April 1945. AP Photo
Gitre: When I first encountered these open-ended responses, I was almost immediately captivated by how similarly white and black soldiers wrote about equity in the military. These two populations sometimes used the same exact phrasing.
For so many black soldiers, military service presented itself as an opportunity to break the shackles of structural inequality. They pleaded for merit-based assignments, postings, and promotions. You can flip over to surveys written by white enlisted men and you can see them wrestling with the same involuntary constraints arising from their own submission. They vigorously protested being treated like a "dog," or a "slave."
The leveling effect of military service was profound—and not simply for the individual soldier, psychologically. The survey research Osborn's team conducted on race, merit, and morale demonstrated that not only were black soldiers just as effective in combat, but that the proximity of black and white troops in combat situations improved race relations, instead of destroying morale, as had long been feared. This research fed the 1947 Executive Order 9981 desegregating the US armed forces.

That brings us back to that 1940 peacetime decision to make military service compulsory as a civic duty. You can't overestimate its significance. This isn't a plea for compulsory military service. Yet as I continue to read these troop surveys, I am confronted daily by the prospect that we are losing the hard-won insights and lessons of a generation that is passing into its final twilight.

Companies like Walmart and SoulCycle are facing more boycotts than ever in the Trump era, but many are still clueless in how to respond

Michael Gordon

Protesters chant slogans and hold signs outside the luxury gym Equinox

 in West Hollywood, California, August 9, 2019, during a protest against 

the gym and fitness company SoulCycle as well as against

President Trump and his benefactor Stephen Ross 

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)




Company boycotts are becoming more prevalent in our highly-politicized culture.
Companies like Walmart and SoulCycle have faced boycotts.
Companies can no longer ignore their customers when it comes to boycotts and hope it blows over. They must act definitively to address customer concerns.
Michael Gordon is a long-time Democratic strategist and the principal for the strategic communications firm, Group Gordon.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Boycotts seem to be a dime a dozen in our culture. With the gale-force influence of social media as the wind in their sails, boycotts spur a media blitz that quickly subsides in our whiplash-inducing news cycle. Then, media and public attention shift to the next big scandal.


But the ubiquity of boycotts does not diminish their seriousness. They remain a powerful form of consumer advocacy that tests the values and standards businesses purport to represent.

This means that businesses need to not only prepare to ride out a boycott but also respond swiftly with definitive actions that address consumers' concerns.
Consumers are expecting more from companies politically

Today, 64% of consumers think it's important that the companies whose products and services they purchase have values aligned with their own. Moreover, 44% of Americans would stop doing business with a company they disagreed with politically.

As brands increasingly become embedded into our everyday lives, consumers are right to use a boycott as a warning flare to brands that they have some explaining to do if they expect to be intimately associated with a person's self-identity. Brands that don't heed that warning can face serious consequences.


Too often when faced with a boycott, corporate America opts to ride out the outrage, taking advantage of our tightened news cycle and the short attention spans it fosters.

Only about 25% of brands publicly respond to boycotts. From a bottom-line perspective, there is some merit to this strategy: boycotts today rarely have an immediate economic impact on brands. However, in a climate in which consumers increasingly look to brands for moral and social leadership, being called out for failing to do the "right" thing can leave a nasty scar on a brand's reputation long after the initial wound has healed, given this reality brands should be armed with a three-part strategy to respond to political snafus.
Doing nothing is not an acceptable response

Brands need to treat a call for a boycott as a call to action: an opportunity to make clear where their social and political values lie and how they are acting according to those values now and in the future.

If it's clear that what consumers are upset about goes against the brand identity, fix it. As a cautionary tale, consider SoulCycle. The brand was put on notice by consumers after revelations of investor Stephen Ross's fundraising for Trump.


While the fitness chain's attendance numbers fell in the days after the boycott, worse for the brand is the betrayal of its adherents. Though the brand issued a statement about the situation, SoulCycle missed an opportunity to back up its words with action. Now, it faces a long climb to regain its previous status—a potentially unreachable target as long as the not-so-"passive" association with Ross continues.
Consumers want real corrective action

Forward-thinking brands understand the long-term benefit of demonstrating values and make the strategic decision to take a stand even when it means alienating some customers in the short term. In these cases, a boycott can actually help a brand prove its bona fides on an issue by not backing down from the pressure.

For example, Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart both took immediate action on gun control after mass shootings that horrified the nation. Though some consumers boycotted, the companies' quick action, meaningful policy changes, and advocacy for gun control measures were ultimately received positively by consumers.

While Dick's saw a 2% decline in sales in the months following the announcement, today its stock is up more than 13%, and sales have since rebounded with the biggest quarterly increase since 2016. Now, almost 150 companies aren't waiting for calls from consumers to urge Congress to pass gun control measures.


As opposed to SoulCycle, Dick's took action in the face of a politically challenging issue and it came out the better for it. More companies should take heed and to take a stand.
Consumers don't forget, and neither should companies

Boycotts inevitably lose steam, but they can continue to haunt brands long into the future. The damage inflicted can have lingering effects on a brand's reputation, as we saw with Uber's struggles since a viral #DeleteUber campaign in January 2017.

The brand was criticized for breaking a taxi strike during protests at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport over President Trump's immigration policy, and a series of additional missteps throughout the year regularly brought the movement back to the fore and cemented Uber as Silicon Valley's bad guy.

The company's recent IPO filing detailed not only the hundreds of thousands of customers lost to the boycott but also how the movement "adversely affected" the brand's reputation and "fueled distrust" among consumers. Now, almost three years and $500 million in marketing spending later, the brand is still struggling to rebuild consumer trust.

The modern boycott plays an important role in our current social and political climate. While it may not dramatically hurt the bottom line in the short term, a boycott is still a lever for consumers to exert pressure on brands.

Businesses that think they've gotten off easy because sales or users didn't plummet drastically after a boycott are fooling themselves and risking long-term damage to their brands. The smartest companies will look beyond the immediate horizon. To thrive, and also to just survive, in the current political climate, companies must respond to boycotts and other political pressures with clear action and a commitment to show consumers them what the brand really stands for.


This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author(s).

INVASION OF SNAKEHEADS!

CTHULHU'S CHILDREN

Woman Is Attacked by Octopus She Was Trying to Eat on Chinese Livestreaming Site

The woman was reportedly attempting to eat the creature live


Woman Is Attacked by Octopus She Was Trying to Eat on Chinese Livestreaming Site: Watch the Scary Video https://people.com/pets/woman-attacked-by-octopus-video-china/

Warning: The above video is graphic and may be disturbing to some

According to the Daily Mail, a Chinese vlogger known as ‘seaside girl Little Seven’ planned to livestream a video of herself eating a live octopus. The animal, however, had different plans, and soon after her camera started rolling, it used its sticky tentacles to attach to her face — and wouldn’t let go.

The struggle lasted for nearly a minute as the woman worked desperately to peel the creature from her face. Once she was able to, she saw herself on screen — and noticed the octopus had punctured her skin.

According to the Daily Mail, the vlogger ended the clip by saying, “I’ll eat it in the next video,” seemingly undeterred by her experience. She regularly posts on the Chinese video platform Kuaishou, and though previous videos she’s taken of herself eating and playing with sea creatures haven’t taken off, this one has gone viral around the world, earning her backlash on the Chinese microblogging site, Weibo.

Trump's fast-tracking of oil pipelines hits legal roadblocks

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Trump administration’s effort to cut red tape and speed up major energy projects has backfired in the case of the three biggest U.S. pipelines now planned or under construction.

All three have been stalled by successful legal challenges by environmental groups alleging the administration failed to apply the regulatory scrutiny required under the law.

The Republican administration tried to accelerate permits for two multi-billion-dollar natural gas lines and jumpstart the long-stalled Keystone XL crude oil pipeline that would start in Canada. Judges halted construction on all three over the past two years, ruling that the administration granted permits without conducting adequate studies or providing enough alternatives to protect endangered species or national forests.

The delays have caused the two giant gas pipelines - Dominion Energy Inc’s Atlantic Coast and EQM Midstream Partners LP’s Mountain Valley - to increase their cost estimates by hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the companies. The Atlantic Coast pipeline may never be completed unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns a lower-court decision blocking its planned route, analysts said.

Lawsuits alleging regulatory lapses are not new, but they were unsuccessful during the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Barack Obama. Plaintiffs lost five separate lawsuits alleging regulatory failures during Obama’s administration, according to a Reuters review of court filings for major interstate gas pipes built since 2010.

“Environmental groups definitely have been going after these pipelines more aggressively,” said Amy Vazquez, Houston-based partner at the law firm of Jones Walker, who specializes in energy litigation. “It’s probably because they’re having a fair bit of success.”

The White House declined to comment. An Energy Department spokeswoman did not comment on the litigation but said the administration remains committed to streamlining energy infrastructure development.


D.J. Gerken, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Asheville, North Carolina, represented the Sierra Club and other environmental groups in cases challenging the Atlantic Coast pipeline. He said the administration’s rush to help industry move faster invited the legal challenges.

“Pressure from the utilities that stand to benefit from this project and the Trump administration produced flawed permits,” he said.

‘MYSTERIOUS’ REGULATORY REVERSAL

In the case of Dominion’s 600-mile (966-km) Atlantic Coast gas pipeline, from West Virginia to North Carolina, the U.S. Forest Service originally expressed skepticism about the project in 2016 when Obama was president, requesting alternative designs. But after Trump took office, the Forest Service changed course, and issued permits and a waiver for the line to cross the Appalachian Trail on national forestland in Virginia.

Petitioners including the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy organization, sued the Forest Service, alleging the agency violated three federal acts in issuing a construction permit.

In December 2018, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Forest Service decisions, with Judge Stephanie Thacker noting in her ruling that “the Forest Service’s serious environmental concerns that were suddenly, and mysteriously, assuaged in time to meet a private pipeline company’s deadlines.”

The court said the Forest Service lacked authority to allow Dominion to build across the Appalachian Trail, which is administered by the Department of Interior. The Forest Service declined to comment.


In July, in another Atlantic Coast case brought by groups including the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, the Fourth Circuit vacated a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. Chief Judge Roger Gregory ruled that the agency, in “fast-tracking” decisions, lost sight of its mandate to protect threatened species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to comment.

Atlantic Coast’s original cost estimate of $6 billion to $6.5 billion has risen to $7 billion to $7.5 billion, the company said. The projected completion has shifted from late 2019 to late 2021.

The U.S. Supreme Court in October agreed to hear the Appalachian Trail case and could overrule the decision halting construction across that route.

Dominion has stopped construction on the pipe since December 2018. Spokesman Aaron Ruby said the company is confident the high court will rule in its favor and “uphold the longstanding precedent allowing pipeline crossings of the Appalachian Trail.”
RISING COSTS, LEGAL RISKS

The Fourth Circuit appeals court also stopped work on EQM’s 303-mile (488-km) Mountain Valley gas pipe from West Virginia to Virginia in June 2018, agreeing with the Sierra Club and other plaintiffs that permits issued by the Army Corps violated West Virginia rules related to stream crossings.

The state has since altered its rules, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of issuing new permits for this pipeline and Atlantic Coast. But the Sierra Club is still challenging a Fish and Wildlife Service permit in a case that also is being heard by the Fourth Circuit.

EQM originally expected to complete Mountain Valley by the end of 2018 at a cost of $3.5 billion. The company said publicly that it expected the pipeline, which is mostly complete, will cost up to $5 billion and enter service in mid-2020.

Diana Charletta, chief operating officer at EQM, said that recent court decisions “have brought uncertainty and a high-level of scrutiny to the agencies’ decisions.”

Officials at both Dominion and EQM dispute that approvals were fast-tracked. Dominion pointed out that it filed its application to build Atlantic Coast in 2014.

“I don’t think any person can look at the regulatory review process for Atlantic Coast pipeline and say that it was fast-tracked,” said Ruby, the Dominion spokesman.

EFFORT TO REVIVE KEYSTONE STALLS

TC Energy Corp’s $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline, originally blocked by Obama in 2015, was revived by Trump in 2017 with the issuance of a presidential permit for the line, which would ship crude from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Federal Judge Brian Morris in Montana blocked work on the pipe in November 2018, citing a lack of due diligence by federal regulators regarding greenhouse gas emissions and Native American land rights.

The Trump administration tried to circumvent that ruling by rescinding its original presidential permit and issuing a new one in March. That second permit now faces legal challenges from Native American groups.


TC Energy said it continues to monitor U.S. legal and regulatory issues while it plans construction. “We are committed to Keystone XL as it remains an important project for our company and for North America,” said Terry Cunha, spokesman for TC Energy.

Canadian producer Suncor Energy said in early September that the uncertain U.S. political landscape makes it unclear that the pipeline will be built. “That’s one a lot of people are doing soul-searching about right now,” said Suncor CEO Mark Little.


Reporting by Scott DiSavino and Stephanie Kelly; Editing by David Gaffen and Brian Thevenot


Why Duke Energy CEO is optimistic work will resume on halted $7.8B Atlantic Coast Pipeline 

By John Downey  – Senior Staff Writer, Charlotte Business Journal

May 9, 2019, 5:05pm EDT

Pipe laid for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline last November near Dry Branch Stream in the West Virginia Mountains.

PIPELINE CSI

The full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing today to review a decision made by a three-judge panel in January that has halted construction of the $7.8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

Duke Energy Corp. executives said Thursday they expect the hearing to clear the way for putting key approvals for the pipeline back in place by this summer. That should allow construction of the 600-mile project — a joint venture by Dominion Energy Inc. (NYSE: D), Duke (NYSE: DUK) and The Southern Company (NYSE: SO) — to resume construction on some sections by the fall.

Duke CEO Lynn Good acknowledged that a separate 4th Circuit ruling, which essentially holds that the pipeline must get permission of the U.S. Congress to cross the Appalachian Trail, remains in place. She told analysts on a conference call that Duke and its partners expect to appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court early this summer, and they hope the Trump Administration will support their appeal. She said that construction on parts of the pipeline not impacted by the Appalachian Trail decision will be able to proceed once the other case, which involves an environmental permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is resolved.

D.J. Gerken, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, who was in Richmond, Virginia, for the arguments, says that is overly optimistic.

Leaving aside whether the environmental groups that SELC represents ultimately prevail in the Fish and Wildlife case, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could hold the ban on construction along the entire pipeline in place once that case is resolved.

Convoluted situation

Gerken says FERC has in the past held that construction of a pipeline cannot proceed until the project has secured right-of-way along the entire proposed route. That means the still-pending decision on right-of-way to cross the Appalachian Trail could lead the agency to hold off on allowing construction to move forward.

The current legal situation for the pipeline, designed to transport fracked natural gas from the Utica and Marcellus shale fields of the north and Midwest from West Virginia to southeastern North Carolina, is convoluted.

Thursday's hearing involved an order by a 4th Circuit panel that held the Fish and Wildlife improperly issued what is know as a "take order" for certain endangered species along the pipeline route. The order is supposed to consider all environmental factors to determine a limit on how much damage can be done to the species and allow it to continue to thrive.

Good said the partners expect the court to rule within 90 days whether the three-judge panel erred in its January ruling. She said that even if the court upholds that ruling, the partners believe the problems can be corrected "over a one to two-month period" and a new order can be issued, giving the project all the environmental approvals it needs.

Discussions continue
Gerken says that is a reasonable timeline. But he notes that his groups are arguing that the pipeline route will jeopardize two species — the rusty patched bumblebee and the clubshell mussel. If the court agrees, it could disallow the route and force the project back to the drawing board.

And he notes that the U.S. Park Service withdrew its permit for the pipeline to cross the Blue Ridge Parkway after the Fish and Wildlife decision was struck down. Duke expects the parkway permit to be reissued once a valid Fish and Wildlife order is in place. But Gerken says that is not certain.

The issue involving the Appalachian Trail focuses on whether the U.S. Forest Service had the authority to allow the pipeline to cross the trail. The 4th Circuit ruled late last year that it did not, holding that only Congress had that authority. A related issue is whether the Forest Service could permit the pipeline to cross the Monongahela and George Washington national forests.

"A petition seeking the Supreme Court review will be filed this summer. We’re optimistic that the government will support it," Good said. "And so, we’ll see milestones over the course of the summer on that item."

As that advances, she said, the pipeline is working with customers who have agreed to transport gas through the pipeline to determine the timing and costs for construction of the project, done in phases working around the trail issue.


"Those discussions will continue over the course of the year as well," she said.